# Bush Admin. on Schip



## Cigarmark (Apr 2, 2007)

*I got this newsletter from the rtda today. Lets hope he sticks to his guns and veto's this bill!*



*EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT*
*OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET*
*WASHINGTON**, D.C. 20503*
*STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY*​*The Administration strongly supports reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The Administration is committed to making sure that poor children have health insurance and to that end, supports focusing resources on providing coverage for low income children. It is urgent that Congress complete its work and send the President a bill he can sign before the program expires September 30, 2007. In fact, the President would sign reasonable legislation to reauthorize SCHIP today. The President's Budget includes a proposed $5 billion expansion, a 20 percent increase in funding. However, the President has several concerns about SCHIP funding and the Senate approach to SCHIP Reauthorization. If SCHIP legislation were presented to the President in its current form, he would veto the bill.*
*Current proposals expand the SCHIP program and changes the focus from those who cannot afford coverage to include families with incomes of up to $83,000 per year or even more. This legislation essentially extends a welfare benefit to middleclass households. The funding levels provided in the first five years under SCHIP are far more than necessary to accomplish the goal of covering low-income children.*
*At the same time, the Senate proposal sets SCHIP on an unsustainable course by expanding and then drastically underfunding the program in the future by at least $60 billion. The legislation balloons the allotments to $16 billion in 2012 and then reduces the allotments to $3.5 billion in 2013. Such a dramatic decline in allotments is highly unlikely and nothing more than an irresponsible budgetary gimmick. In the period 2013-2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office, SCHIP funding and enrollment under the bill would be lower than under current law, which could cause millions of children to lose coverage over the long-term.*
*The bill discourages States from efficiently managing their allotments by increasing SCHIP allotments at a growth rate well above their projected spending and by creating new funding sources in addition to State allotments. The legislation would create two new funds that appear to encourage States to overspend their budgets. The legislation purposefully sets excessive and unnecessary allotment levels that are designed to spill over into the new "Incentive Fund."*
*The bill is inconsistent with the principle of choice for American consumers and instead goes too far in federalizing health care. A competitive private market for health insurance is better policy than a government-run system that would mean lower quality, longer lines, and fewer options for patients and their doctors. The current legislaion would cause millions of individuals to drop their private insurance in order to be involved with a government insurance plan. Many of the gains in SCHIP under this legislation will be offset by losses in private health insurance coverage because the proposed SCHIP expansion targets families at income levels where most children already have private health insurance coverage. As a result, the true net increase in coverage for children is estimated to be between 40 and 50 percent of the increase in enrollment levels under SCHIP. As a result, the cost per each newly insured individual under the bill would be $3,950 in 2012 in combined Federal and State spending. The Administration is deeply concerned that current legislation will result in the expenditure of billions of dollars that will merely replace what otherwise would have been spent by families meeting their own obligations to care for their children. The "crowd out" effect weakens the private health insurance system and creates new inequities among families who continue to pay for their own health care and those at the same income level who do not.*
*The Administration is also concerned that the proposed legislation will delay the Administration's efforts to transition adults out of SCHIP and into Medicaid. By October 1, 2007, the Department of Health and Human Services will have moved half of the adults covered by SCHIP through demonstration projects out of Title XXI and into Medicaid, but the Senate version would reverse this progress.*
*The Administration believes this legislation needs dramatic changes in three major areas-funding, coverage of adults, and coverage of children in higher income levels.*
*The Administration strongly objects to the provision in the Senate proposal that wrongly weakens the current option available to States to cover unborn children and their mothers. The new option would exclude coverage for certain unborn children and their mothers who would be eligible under the existing regulations. The Administration believes every human life has value, and every child should be welcomed into life. *
*The Administration also strongly opposes the proposed tax increases contained in the legislation.*
*The use of tax increases to fund spending increases is undesirable and inadvisable. The Administration is concerned about the negative impact on State budgets from the loss of direct revenue and the uncertain impact this may have on States and bondholders in relation to the tobacco Master Settlement Agreements.*
_*Take Action Now! *__*No New Taxes!*_​


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl (Sep 8, 2005)




----------



## SmokeyJoe (Oct 3, 2006)

Thanks, Cigarmark. Maybe some good news... :ss


----------



## RETSF (Dec 7, 2006)

Bit by bit we are being herded into universal health care...Gun control...creating laws to control the american population.... social engineering...socialist minded leadership in the current congress....and so on...... We used to be free but bit by bit certian elements of society want us to become more like Europe where the government knows what is best for the population at large. Many of our current reps in the house and senate believe that they were elected for their opinions - opposed to the desires of the people who got them elected. Whats worse is that a majority of fellow countrymen seem to just go along with what is fed to them from the congress. Yep Big Brother Knows best...as long as I'm fed and have entertainment I'm satisfied. This legislation is just another step towards increasing taxes but the way of taxing and increase control of the smaller segments of society - gradually other segments will be taxed to death "For The Childern", increased sin taxes on wine, alochol, beer, SUV/ATV owners as well as a slew of other areas will be attacked next. But it's all for the childern.


----------



## billybarue (Mar 20, 2006)

Corona Gigante said:


>


Nicholas,

I can only take the above caricature/comic to mean you are *FOR* the tax increase on tobacco? Especially if it is to pay for our move to "Socialized Medicine/Healthcare"?

I'm against both BTW!!

BillyBarue


----------



## Big_Boy Stogie (Jul 20, 2007)

Stupid Liberals


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl (Sep 8, 2005)

Big_Boy Stogie said:


> Stupid Liberals


Stupid is as stupid does my momma told me.


----------



## burninator (Jul 11, 2006)

Big_Boy Stogie said:


> Stupid Liberals


Who? Bush or the Senate?


----------



## etenpenny (Dec 12, 2005)

burninator said:


> Who? Bush or the Senate?


no difference lately


----------



## Coffee Grounds (Feb 14, 2007)

Corona Gigante said:


>


Its so easy for people with little knowledge to look at comic books for the easy answer.

Libs are destroying this country!


----------



## tzaddi (Feb 24, 2007)

Coffee Grounds said:


> Its so easy for people with little knowledge to look at comic books for the easy answer.
> 
> Libs are destroying this country!


Oh, but if it where only that simple. As my Grandma used to say, "It takes all kinds."


----------



## adsantos13 (Oct 10, 2006)

Coffee Grounds said:


> Libs are destroying this country!


Hmmm, didn't the Republicans control all three branches of government from 2000 to about 2006? And the Executive and the Judicial after that?

I'm not so sure its that simple, Coffee.


----------



## Big_Boy Stogie (Jul 20, 2007)

burninator said:


> Who? Bush or the Senate?


POWER HUNGRY LIBERALS. HARRY REID, OBAMA, CLINTON, ETC


----------



## Big_Boy Stogie (Jul 20, 2007)

adsantos13 said:


> Hmmm, didn't the Republicans control all three branches of government from 2000 to about 2006? And the Executive and the Judicial after that?
> 
> I'm not so sure its that simple, Coffee.


You are correct it is not that simple. However the majority of liberals support reducing the power of the people and increasing the power of the government. They do this by increasing taxes, proposing stiffer gun control laws, and decreasing the standard of morality within a nation.


----------



## Coffee Grounds (Feb 14, 2007)

adsantos13 said:


> Hmmm, didn't the Republicans control all three branches of government from 2000 to about 2006? And the Executive and the Judicial after that?
> 
> I'm not so sure its that simple, Coffee.


I agree the Republicans dropped the ball when they had control.
They had a chance to tackle SS and our tax code but could not come to terms. I would call that Senate & Congress the do nothings. 
The one thing they did do was Medicare Plan D and H.S.A's which were good things for the health industry.

Look at how bad the Democrats have been. All they do is have hearings and votes that don't count. The only thing they have done so far is raised the minium wage.

The current Schip policy just goes to show how the dems/libs are working a inside angle to make the President look bad. They know dam well there is no way Bush is going to allow a socialized medicine plan take place.

At the least with Republicans they shoot for lower taxes.

Our entire form of Gov. has become corrupt. So I choose the party that is the lessor of one evil.


----------



## Big_Boy Stogie (Jul 20, 2007)

Coffee Grounds said:


> I agree the Republicans dropped the ball when they had control.
> They had a chance to tackle SS and our tax code but could not come to terms. I would call that Senate & Congress the do nothings.
> The one thing they did do was Medicare Plan D and H.S.A's which were good things for the health industry.
> 
> ...


AMEN Brother:ss


----------



## borndead1 (Oct 21, 2006)

Big_Boy Stogie said:


> You are correct it is not that simple. However the majority of liberals support *reducing the power of the people and increasing the power of the government. *They do this by increasing taxes, proposing stiffer gun control laws, and decreasing the standard of morality within a nation.


Like the Patriot Act? Increased government spending? Doubling the size of the Dept of Education? Expanding entitlement programs?

Come on, man. The shit is coming at us from both parties and always has. We get bull shit from one side and horse shit from the other.

Vote Libertarian!!!!!


----------



## Big_Boy Stogie (Jul 20, 2007)

borndead1 said:


> Like the Patriot Act? Increased government spending? Doubling the size of the Dept of Education? Expanding entitlement programs?
> 
> Come on, man. The shit is coming at us from both parties and always has. We get bull shit from one side and horse shit from the other.
> 
> Vote Libertarian!!!!!


I agree with you. I never said that I was republican. I am a conservative. I totally agree with you about how we are getting it from both sides.


----------



## kjjm4 (May 8, 2007)

Big_Boy Stogie said:


> I agree with you. I never said that I was republican. I am a conservative. I totally agree with you about how we are getting it from both sides.


Real conservatives are nothing like the asshats running the GOP these days. I used to more or less consider myself a Republican, but I no longer do. The republican party is just as bad as the Democrats right now.

But anyway, I'm glad the Bush administration is doing the right thing about SCHIP, and for the right reasons. Sure, the cigar tax is going to sting in the short term, but what this is really all about is opening the door to socialized medicine, and that's REALLY gonna put a hurtin' on all our wallets with increased taxes if it ever comes about.


----------



## Uniputt (Nov 23, 2004)

I just love these threads!
Who needs the liberal mass media outlets or conservative talk radio?


o
:cb
:al


----------



## RETSF (Dec 7, 2006)

My personal opinion is that the majority of americans are sheep, being led around, fed what ever and following the fools and idiots that got elected. Blame one way or the other falls back on at least three categories of individuals (and maybe more). First are those who didn't vote; which is a decision in itself not to participate in the election process. They may B3tch gripe and complain but they got exactly what they asked for by way of not fulfilling their individual obligation to be involved in the election process. Then you have the party line voter....dosen't matter if the elected offical is trying to fulfill their own personal agenda, plays the quid pro quo with their votes in the House/Senate on the new laws or free give aways from the government, or easily syawed to go along with a particular view or party line based on emotional trigger words as opposed to fact. After those are the folks who voted but don't actively communicate to the elected offical of their expectations and/or voice their individual demands that the offical take certain actions. How many people actually communicate their desires to the elected Rep of The House and of the Senate. Out of say a hundred people I work with their is only one other individual (besides me) who communicates their expectations to their elected officals. In the end its the non-involved individual voter(s) who have failed to join collectively to determine the course this country takes. :2


----------



## adsantos13 (Oct 10, 2006)

RETSF said:


> My personal opinion is that the majority of americans are sheep, being led around, fed what ever and following the fools and idiots that got elected. Blame one way or the other falls back on at least three categories of individuals (and maybe more). First are those who didn't vote; which is a decision in itself not to participate in the election process. They may B3tch gripe and complain but they got exactly what they asked for by way of not fulfilling their individual obligation to be involved in the election process. Then you have the party line voter....dosen't matter if the elected offical is trying to fulfill their own personal agenda, plays the quid pro quo with their votes in the House/Senate on the new laws or free give aways from the government, or easily syawed to go along with a particular view or party line based on emotional trigger words as opposed to fact. After those are the folks who voted but don't actively communicate to the elected offical of their expectations and/or voice their individual demands that the offical take certain actions. How many people actually communicate their desires to the elected Rep of The House and of the Senate. Out of say a hundred people I work with their is only one other individual (besides me) who communicates their expectations to their elected officals. In the end its the non-involved individual voter(s) who have failed to join collectively to determine the course this country takes. :2


Well said...


----------



## homeless_texan (Sep 11, 2005)

kjjm4 said:


> Real conservatives are nothing like the asshats running the GOP these days. I used to more or less consider myself a Republican, but I no longer do. The republican party is just as bad as the Democrats right now.
> 
> Word!


----------

